Search results

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and improve the current methodology of securing and collecting data sources for use in the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model to more accurately use, and be able to support, inputs and outputs from economic impact models, specifically those generated by IMPLAN.

Primary expenditure data were derived from an extensive mail survey conducted during the 2005-2006 Mississippi waterfowl-hunting season. Survey results were analyzed using the IMPLAN software model default data and comparing it with new, more localized state data that were collected in 2010. Industry sectors were sorted and ranked after analysis based on sector importance to the economy and IMPLAN default data were replaced by localized data.

Economic contributions generated from the survey-based default model were $158 million (2010 USD) supporting 1,981 full- and part-time jobs. Economic contributions using survey-based data replacement model were $153 million (2010 USD) supporting 1,517 full- and part-time jobs. Separate model runs of the survey-based data replacement model yielded vastly different results, making the case for changing as many sectors with larger impacts as possible.

The makeup and components of sectors used and described by the IMPLAN model were at times not clearly labeled which at times hindered the process of comparing and replacing data. It was evident that IMPLAN sectors were too highly aggregated.

This project will contribute to efforts within Mississippi aimed at protecting and promoting its natural resources for conservation and use for both the private and public sector.

To show how e mentoring can be used.

The article quotes case evidence on the value of e mentoring.

E mentoring can be an effective mode and does not suffer from as many problems as some would imagine

E mentoring can be used in organizations as an effective development approach

Very little has been written about e mentoring and this article is a useful addition to the literature.

Analyses the implications of the management of labour for an organization undertaking an accreditation exercise. Considers the King’s Fund Organizational Audit (KFOA) accreditation scheme, which is concerned with process and facilities, and assesses the quality of the hospital environment in which the health care product is supplied. Concludes that, given the current enthusiasm for finding best practice in health care and the ever‐increasing number of cost‐effectiveness analyses of therapeutic interventions, it seems somewhat contradictory that interventions which cover the whole environment in which health care interventions are performed are not treated in the same way.

This chapter examines how key management theories in management and organization studies (MOS) have addressed kindness. Beginning with a definition of kindness, the chapter reviews the primary works of Frederick Taylor, Elton Mayo and Henri Fayol to surface an alternate account of MOS. ANTi-History is adopted to examine how each of these management theories present kindness providing an alternate account of MOS that predominantly focuses on efficiency and effectiveness. The chapter then re-evaluates MOS using a lens of kindness and the impact to contemporary organizations.

Three themes dominate Hunting Causes. The first is that cause is a plural concept. The methods and metaphysics of causation, Cartwright believes, are context dependent. Different causal accounts seem to be at odds with one another only because the same word means different things in different contexts. Every formal approach to causality uses a conceptual framework that is “thinner” than causal reality. She lists a bewildering variety of approaches to causation: probabilistic and Bayes-net accounts (of, for example, Patrick Suppes, Clive Granger, Wolfgang Spohn, Judea Pearl, and Clark Glymour), modularity accounts (Pearl, James Woodward, and Stephen LeRoy), invariance accounts (Woodward, David Hendry, and Kevin Hoover), natural experiments (Herbert Simon, James Hamilton, and Cartwright), causal process accounts (Wesley Salmon and Philip Dowe), efficacy accounts (Hoover), counterfactual accounts (David Lewis, Hendry, Paul Holland, and Donald Rubin), manipulationist accounts (Peter Menzies and Huw Price), and others. The lists of advocates of various accounts overlap. Nevertheless, she sometimes treats these accounts as if they were so different that it is not clear why they should be the subject of a single book. And she fails to explain what they have in common. If, as she apparently believes, they do not have a common essence, do they have a Wittgensteinian family resemblance? She fails to explore in any systematic way the complementarities among the different approaches – for example, between invariance accounts, Bayes-nets, and natural experiments – that frequently make their advocates allies rather than opponents.

Explores relationships between the popular perception of public relations; the Grunigian paradigm, its distortion by UK teachers and a way forward to a more soundly‐based teaching about the communications of organizations. The first part is about public perceptions of public relations in the UK and how these influence attitudes on the campus. The second part is about shifting the emphasis of teaching away from a communication science perspective and towards a political studies one. Concludes that this shift could lead to a better connection with modern thinking about persuasive information flows in modern, liberal, industrialized societies.

Examines undergraduate corporate communications, and argues that the division into marketing and non‐marketing components is only partial. Students' curriculum choices often reflect society's rejection of political activity, but involvement in marketing communications can lead to conflictual activity. Presents the case for redesign of the curriculum to reflect the unity of communications, and provides a short, political economy analysis of UK organizations.